Subject: Re: Networking problem.
To: Rasputin <rasputin@idoru.mine.nu>
From: Richard Rauch <rauch@rice.edu>
List: netbsd-help
Date: 11/29/2002 11:00:49
> > Hm.  It still seems like the route man-page is half-way telling me
> > "there's a way to specify *particular* IP numbers to be routed through
> > *particular* interfaces, regardless of the subnetting and interface
> > addresses..."  But if it's really telling me that, I haven't figured out
> > how I'm supposed to accomplish it.
>
> You could setup prometheus with all  your public IPs on
> its public interface (pub0), and then set up rules like
>
> 'any traffic coming in to 66.136.7.250:80 should go to 10.10.10.2:80 (hermes)'
> 'any traffic coming in to 66.136.7.252:25 should go to 10.10.10.8:25 (mailbox)'

Okay, thanks.  (^&


> > Yes, this works.  (Except that the modem is designed to be connected via a
> > normal ethernet cable directly to an ethernet card.  But, that's a small
> > thing.)
>
> More precisely, a 'crossover cable' :)

No, it seems to want a regular cable.  (But, it came with its own cable
which I've mostly used.  I believe over the past couple of days I have had
it using one of my regular ethernet cables when I connected it to another
ethernet card.)

A crossover cable, I think, would be required if I didn't plug it into my
hub's uplink.  (^&


> > >    ISP  ----  < 66.136.7.248/29 network > -- prometheus --- <66.136.7.248/29> --- hermes
> > >
> > > which makes no sense - that's why my last post was gibberish :).
> >
> > *grin*
> >
> > I was originally hoping that it *did* make sense.  Now it's just a matter
> > of ``I don't understand why it *can't* be that way.''
>
> Basically, it confuses the router if you try to route between 2 identical
> (as far as it's concerned) networks.  It's like walking into Cardiff
> train station and saying 'two tickets to Cardiff, please' - the
> ticket seller just says 'but you're in Cardiff?'.

Except that I want the packets forwarded to particular IP's.  So it's more
like saying, "1828 Jackson Drive, please".  Hopefully there's a cab driver
hanging around the station.  (^&

I was trying to pretend that the subnet didn't exist.  The suggestion of
using /32 networks for IP-specific routing sounds promising.  (I haven't
tried it.)


> > There is a final advantage to setting up my machine as a router: I can
> > honestly claim to be using a router.  This seems to make a signficant
> > difference in how customer support responds.  If you just say "I'm running
> > a UNIX OS", they say, "We don't support that."
>
> To which the correct response is: 'look, mate, just give me the DNS server
> IPs and a default gateway and you can get back to Quake.'

To which their typical response is "Go click on the Start menu..." or the
like.  My limited experiments so far suggest that the mystic word "router"
breaks them free from some kind of vile hypnotic influence.  (^&  This
jars them loose and forces them to actually try to understand what they
are doing and saying.


> Or occassionally (i.e. if the lines breoken and you want someone to fix it
> rather than blame your OS for the smoke coming out of their kit):
> 'im terribly sorry, did I say UNIX? I meant Windows 98.'

Then it's back to "click on the Start menu" or "shut down your computer
for 2 minutes, and the modem, and turn *everything* back on!  Did you know
that sometimes this will actually make your connection faster?"  (They
actually have that as a voice recording before they connect you to
anyone.)


> > > [ This also explains why your DHCP requests fail:
> >
> > Um, I don't understand: Why can't my ISP's gateway machine (66.136.7.254;
> > clearly in the same subnet) be a DHCP server?
>
> Well, if they did, it would have answered :)

There's no possibility that they have some weird variation that works for
their Mac and BillOS customers, but which requires a parameter (or tweak?)
to work with NetBSD?

They *do* tell their static IP customers to configure via DHCP.


Thanks for the answers.  If there *definitely* is no way that there's
anything approaching a conforming DHCP server (based on tcpdump output
I've given), I can ask them what's up with that.  (^&


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu